Aims of the day• Introduce research and thinking to date• Discuss the proposed model for archives accreditation• Discuss the possible contents of an archives accreditation standard• Secure support for participation in the co- creation process
Co-creation“the practice of collaborative product or service development: developers and stake-holders working together.” Fronteer Strategy White Paper 2009, Co-creations 5 guiding principles
Thinking about accreditation• What, in your opinion and experience, would make an Archives Accreditation Scheme successful in improving your service?• Please suggest up to 3 key points in order of importance
Overview of the ProjectPurpose: to Design an Archives Accreditation Scheme for the UKAims to be :• A standards scheme that drives improvement by externally validating and accrediting achievement• Purpose built to meet the needs of archives• Driven and owned by the archives sector• Focused on user needs and experiences• Affordable and deliver value for money• Open to all archives that meet basic eligibility criteria• Aligned to museum Accreditation• Replace the Self Assessment Scheme (for local government in England & Wales); dovetails with Public Record Place of Deposit and Approved Archive status and S60 monitoring.• To align with other UK archive programmes.
Benefits of archives accreditation Or isn’t this the wrong time for this?
Work to date• Stage 1: – Scope the aims and aspirations of partners, explore best practice models and examine how these could be transferred. – to explore how a standard should be developed to ensure sector support – To identify possible models – to assess what resources might be required to pilot, deliver and manage the standard.• Stage 2: – establish partnerships with strategic bodies and sector stakeholders – set scheme scope and parameters – conduct post-CSR review of delivery mechanisms and budgets – set up sector working groups• Stage 3: – Co-creation with the sector
Stage 1 research : A precis• Review of the benefits and issues arising from Self- Assessment process in England and Wales• Examination & analysis of other models and discussion of improvement tool v accreditation scheme: • Self-improvement tools: – goal = achieving sustainable excellence – do not seek to accredit, recognise, or rank • Accreditation Schemes – certificate excellence or achievement of defined standards – externally validated, but may incorporate self-evaluation – formal ‘badge of approval’
Models : Key learning points• Eligibility – Archives and/or records management – what’s being assessed? – Securing corporate buy-in• Model type – Self-improvement tool or Accreditation Scheme?• Process – Directive, or flexible and modular? – Proportionate
Models : Learning points• Validation – small, focussed review/validation teams – use of peer reviewers• Costs – Fee charging for validation services common• Support – clear, coordinated guidance essential – one-stop-shop – quality rather than quantity – value of people support
Stage 2 research• Refinement due to governmental policy changes• Changes due to the demise of MLA and transfer to TNA
A Blended SolutionArchives Accreditation ‘Building Block’ STANDARDS/ REQUIREMENTS MODULES GRADING / GUIDANCE & DELIVERY LEVELS SUPPORT PROCESS ASSESSMENT
Pre-qualification or ‘milestone’ markers Options • for organisations on a journey towards full accreditation1. Same structure as revised Museum Minimum standardsAccreditation Scheme; • common to all museum and archive applicants2. Request changes to the proposed • museums onlymodules for Museum Accreditation; • archives only3. Create additional modules; or4. Create different modules. Additional standards STANDARDS/ • Supplementary standards for certain categories of REQUIREMENTS archives and museums • ‘Silver’ standards • ‘Gold’ standards 1. Prescriptive delivery process GRADING / GUIDANCE DELIVERY & SUPPORT directed by the awarding body; MODULES LEVELS PROCESS or 2. More flexible, modular approach, offering applicants choice ASSESSMENT 1. Single minimum standard like Museum 1. TNA & MLA streamlining Accreditation; 2. MDO and/or Museum or Accreditation Officer changes 2. Stepped awards e.g. 3. Peer support networks • Star ratings (TNA Self-Assessment) 4. Centralised online guidance • Standard, Silver and Gold Awards (Artsmark) 1. Self evaluation • Levels of Excellence (EFQM Excellence Model 2. Desk review recognition awards) 3. In-house, external or mixed review/validation teams • Stepping Stones – Foundation, Intermediate, 4. Peer reviewers Full Award (International Schools Award) 5. Independent consultant assessors 6. In-house, external or mixed Moderation or Awards Panels 7. External third party accreditation bodies (e.g. UKAS)
Recommendations •Identify common standards with museums •Develop standards specific to archives, and to different archive types •National administrative structure, coordinated centrally by TNA •Same sections as revised STANDARDS / •Open invitation process Museum Accreditation Scheme: REQUIREMENTS •Flexible, modular approach •Organisational health •Some direction and prioritisation by •Collections national assessing bodies •Users & their experience MODULES GRADING / GUIDANCE & DELIVERY LEVELS SUPPORT PROCESS ASSESSMENT •Core (minimum) standards – weighted to different archive types •Develop regional partnerships •Basic level + 1 or 2 enhanced levels •Create peer support networks •Develop central UK digital resource •Develop UK training programme •Nationally-managed assessment process, moderated by and networks through ARA a UK Panel/Committee •Level of validation for X% new applicants; X% returns •Small mixed review teams including peer reviewers •Combined committee structure with sub-panels in partnership with Museums Accreditation Scheme •Widen Committee/Panel membership to include other sectors (e.g. education, health, business)
Discuss: The Building Block Approach1. What might work and why?2. What might not work and why?3. Are there other options? STANDARDS/ REQUIREMENTS MODULES GRADING / GUIDANCE & DELIVERY LEVELS SUPPORT PROCESS ASSESSMENT
The plan for co-creation• The creation of a “destruction” document• Series of workshops to introduce our thinking• Webinar – 9 Feb• By the 6 Feb online environment will be complete and you will be emailed joining information for the online discussions• The online forum will be web based, accessible and encourage short sharp contributions.
Co-creating the Standard – Destruction Document layout Sections : 1. Organisational Health 2. Collections 3. Users and their experiences
Co-creating the Standard – Destruction Document layout• Divided into : – Headline - Area of work – Objective - The goal of this section – Standard – The specific requirement – Learn more - More detail – Evidence – Resources
Sample1 Organisational Health1.3 Appropriate management arrangementsObjective: The interests of stakeholders and collections are served through the responsible management of the archive service.Standard: The archive service is an effective organisation that is well managed and able to provide evidence of the requirements outlined below1.3.1 The service has a satisfactory management structure from the governing body to the user
Headlines1. What’s missing?2. What’s described wrongly?
Sample Section1. What works?2. What doesn’t work?3. What would be your preferred text?